217 karma · joined February 17, 2015
You either can get paid in pure salary and have a lower ceiling (because you're paying for less risk) and then be left out when the company does well. Or you can get some stock with a higher ceiling/lower floor and be screwed if the company goes down the drain. Either way you're not forced to take equity... developers are in demand.
This is before even considering about trying to align interests of the employee with the company..
Sorry but this line is almost always complete BS. Anyone that I know who has heard this line, gone out and gotten a (much better) offer somewhere else, and the original company instantly matched. Like, without even having to consult anyone, their manager said they'd match. You can't trust this line.
Source: They discussed their negotiations with me so I know their compensation, and I used to work as a CPA at one of the big 4
Edit: Found it - it's justinkan (Guess I coulda guessed that)
[0] http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/19/snapchat-reportedly-sees-mo...
That being said, I definitely think software engineers should be writing the unit tests and automating as much as they can - it's just that you can't automate everything.
How is it possibly legal for a government, which is supposed to be transparent, to contract with a private company and accept a term saying they cannot talk about the private company without company approval?
So you seem to agree that income inequality can be a good thing. If you didn't, you'd want everyone to have the same income. Maybe I misunderstood PG's essay, but the main takeaway I got was that income inequality CAN be a good thing for a society, and that the income inequality caused by successful startups are not an important enough problem (if it is even a problem) to society for us to try to focus on it.
Would you really rather have everyone make the same amount of income regardless of what they do?
I'm utterly shocked and disappointed by how many people on here are saying things along the lines of "what's the big deal?"